Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 871–875 | Cite as

Sex-Specificity in the Reward Value of Facial Attractiveness

  • Amanda C. Hahn
  • Claire I. Fisher
  • Lisa M. DeBruine
  • Benedict C. Jones
Original Paper


Studies of the sex-specificity of sexual arousal in adults (i.e., the tendency to respond more strongly to preferred-sex individuals than non-preferred sex individuals) have suggested that heterosexual men, homosexual men, and homosexual women show stronger sex-specific responses than do heterosexual women. Evidence for a similar pattern of results in studies investigating the reward value of faces is equivocal. Consequently, we investigated the effects of (1) sexual orientation (homosexual vs. heterosexual), (2) sex (male vs. female), (3) image sex (preferred-sex vs. non-preferred-sex), and (4) the physical attractiveness of the individual shown in the image on the reward value of faces. Participants were 130 heterosexual men, 130 homosexual men, 130 heterosexual women, and 130 homosexual women. The reward value of faces was assessed using a standard key-press task. Multilevel modeling of responses indicated that images of preferred-sex individuals were more rewarding than images of non-preferred-sex individuals and that this preferred-sex bias was particularly pronounced when more physically attractive faces were presented. These effects were not qualified by interactions involving either the sexual orientation or the sex of our participants, however, suggesting that the preferred-sex bias in the reward value of faces is similar in heterosexual men, homosexual men, heterosexual women, and homosexual women.


Sexual orientation Facial attractiveness Sexual arousal Gender differences Genital arousal 



Parts of this research were supported by European Research Council Starting Grant 282655 (OCMATE), awarded to Benedict C. Jones.


  1. Aharon, I., Etcoff, N., Ariely, D., Chabris, C. F., O’Connor, E., & Breiter, H. C. (2001). Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioral evidence. Neuron, 32, 537–551.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.0-6.
  3. Both, S., Spiering, M., Everaerd, W., & Laan, E. (2004). Sexual behavior and responsiveness to sexual stimuli following laboratory-induced sexual arousal. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 242–258.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chivers, M. L., Seto, M. C., Lalumière, M. L., Laan, E., & Grimbos, T. (2010). Agreement of self-reported and genital measures of sexual arousal in men and women: A meta-analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 5–56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Ebsworth, M., & Lalumiere, M. L. (2012). Viewing time as a measure of bisexual sexual interest. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 161–172.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Fisher, C., Fincher, C. L., Hahn, A. C., Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2014). Do assortative preferences contribute to assortative mating for adiposity? British Journal of Psychology, 105, 474–485.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Hahn, A. C., Xiao, D. K., Sprengelmeyer, R. H., & Perrett, D. I. (2013). Gender differences in the incentive salience of infants. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 200–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ishai, A. (2007). Sex, beauty and the orbitofrontal cortex. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 63, 181–185.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Little, A. C., Conway, C. A., Welling, L. L. M., & Smith, F. G. (2007). Sensation seeking and men’s face preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 439–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kranz, F., & Ishai, A. (2006). Face perception is modulated by sexual preference. Current Biology, 16, 63–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kukkonen, T. M., Binik, Y. M., Amsel, R., & Carrier, S. (2010). An evaluation of the validity of thermography as a physiological measure of sexual arousal in a non-university adult sample. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 861–873.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2013). lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). R package version 2.0-3.
  13. Levy, B., Ariely, D., Mazar, N., Chi, W., Lukas, S. E., & Elman, I. (2008). Gender differences in the motivational processing of facial beauty. Learning and Motivation, 39, 136–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lippa, R. (2012). Effects of sex and sexual orientation on self-reported attraction and viewing times to images of men and women: Testing for category specificity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 149–160.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Version 3.0.1. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
  17. Rieger, G., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2012). The eyes have it: Sex and sexual orientation differences in pupil dilation patterns. PLoS One, 7, e40256.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Snowden, R., & Gray, N. S. (2013). Implicit sexual associations in heterosexual and homosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 475–485.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Steffens, M. C., Landmann, S., & Mecklenbrauker, S. (2013). Participant sexual orientation matters: New evidence on the gender bias in face recognition. Experimental Psychology, 60, 362–367.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Sylva, D., Safron, A., Rosenthal, A. M., Reber, P. J., Parrish, T. B., & Bailey, J. M. (2013). Neural correlates of sexual arousal in heterosexual and homosexual women and men. Hormones and Behavior, 64, 673–684. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2013.08.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amanda C. Hahn
    • 1
  • Claire I. Fisher
    • 1
  • Lisa M. DeBruine
    • 1
  • Benedict C. Jones
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Neuroscience & PsychologyUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations